New Zealand's semi-automatic rifle ban

[StoneByStone]

When you said that smaller magazines would save lives.

You found that rude? Seriously?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You found that rude? Seriously?

YEP, it was rude for you to ignore the questions posed to you, providing nothing of proof for your lie, and then running away when challenged.

 

[StoneByStone]

YEP, it was rude for you to ignore the questions posed to you, providing nothing of proof for your lie, and then running away when challenged.

I answered all the questions you posed, but then you started sperging out, so I got bored.

Do you think you can have this discussion without sperging out?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I answered all the questions you posed, but then you started sperging out, so I got bored.

Do you think you can have this discussion without sperging out?

What you call an answer, was no proof; because it was just your opinion; therefore you did not answer.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[StoneByStone]

What you call an answer, was no proof; because it was just your opinion; therefore you did not answer.

Actually, I gave a logical reason which you never tried to disprove.

You're a fucking idiot.

See? You can't have a conversation like an adult.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Actually, I gave a logical reason which you never tried to disprove.



See? You can't have a conversation like an adult.

NOPE, you attempted to provide your "reason"; but was unable to provide any PROOF. because your "reason" is not proof.

BUT; if you want to say you saying it means it's true is proof, then you also have to accept me saying it's not true as proof then also.

Try acting like an adult, you fucking idiot, and you'll get an adult conversation; because you sticking your fingers in your ears, going "LALALA", and ignoring my provided video is not what an adult acts like.

 

[StoneByStone]

NOPE, you attempted to provide your "reason"; but was unable to provide any PROOF. because your "reason" is not proof.

BUT; if you want to say you saying it means it's true is proof, then you also have to accept me saying it's not true as proof then also.

Try acting like an adult, you fucking idiot, and you'll get an adult conversation; because you sticking your fingers in your ears, going "LALALA", and ignoring my provided video is not what an adult acts like.

Looks like somebody needs a nap.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Looks like somebody needs a nap.

Let everyone know if yours helps you to actually provide proof to questions, instead of just expecting your comments to be FACTS.

 

[gfm7175]

An interesting term, 'liberal logic'. I wonder if that has anything to do with 'liberal math'? It's the liberal way of thinking I suppose. Some consider it a mental disorder. I tend to agree with them. Isn't fundamentalism in and of itself such? The Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, and the Church of Karl Marx are all fundamentalist style religions. A fundamentalist tries to prove a circular argument True simply because it exists.

I think it also has to do with 'liberal science', which is apparently a classified top secret "method" which is "settled", has been "peer-reviewed", and has been "published" in an "official document"... It may seem that "published" contradicts "top secret", but 'liberal logic' is okay with that, only until it isn't okay with that. Simpletons like us just don't understand how it works... We weren't educated at the proper colleges...

 

[gfm7175]

No need. Anyone can go back through your posts and look for themselves. They don't have to look far. Indeed, you threw an insult at me while you were claiming you never throw insults. It's why USFREEDOM911 and I are laughing at you.

I'm laughing at him too.

 

[Into the Night]

Type "second protects the first" into Google.

Google is not a conservative. Indeed, the company is largely liberal.

The Nazis made it easier, not harder, for German citizens to own guns.

Changing history now?

The Soviets gave guns to prisoners and made them fight the Nazis.

Changing history now?

In both cases, the citizens did not rise up to fight the oppressive governments because an armed militia can not defeat a government military.

Oh yes it can! Remember the revolutionary war? Perhaps you missed that in school.

You don't seem to get that citizens outnumber any military by a WIDE margin.

No, I'm saying one argument is wrong.

No, you are making a false equivalence between two arguments. You have also not lost context. while moving goalposts around. Done here.

That argument is that we need guns to have freedom.

Guns do protect other freedoms, as well as yourself, your family, and your property.

This is an argument made by the pro-gun crowd all the time.

And that argument is correct. Guns are what made this country free. They are what keeps it free.

 

[Into the Night]

I answered all the questions you posed, but then you started sperging out, so I got bored.

Do you think you can have this discussion without sperging out?

WRONG. You evade all the time, liar.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, I gave a logical reason which you never tried to disprove.

Chanting isn't logic.

See? You can't have a conversation like an adult.

Insult fallacy (again).

 

[Into the Night]

I think it also has to do with 'liberal science', which is apparently a classified top secret "method" which is "settled", has been "peer-reviewed", and has been "published" in an "official document"... It may seem that "published" contradicts "top secret", but 'liberal logic' is okay with that, only until it isn't okay with that. Simpletons like us just don't understand how it works... We weren't educated at the proper colleges...

Actually, the 'science' that is often used is from a definition of 'science' by Francis Bacon. It is also taught at places like Berkeley college as 'science'. It was he that created the concept of a 'scientific method', making use of supporting evidence to prove a theory, etc. At the time, Bacon was attempting to justify Christianity as 'science' by using this philosophy. That part they don't teach at Berkeley. It's why when someone brings up Bacon's definition of 'science', I attack it by using it to prove Christianity and Atheism at the same time, to show what a paradox that definition creates.

Karl Popper has it right. 'Science' is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. No theory is ever proven True. It can only be proven False if and only if the theory is falsifiable.

Nonscientific theories, such as the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of the Big Bang, or the Theory of Creation, are not falsifiable, and therefore not science. They can be neither be proven True nor False. They can never be falsified, so they will never die. They remain as they began: circular arguments.

 

[gfm7175]

Actually, the 'science' that is often used is from a definition of 'science' by Francis Bacon. It is also taught at places like Berkeley college as 'science'. It was he that created the concept of a 'scientific method', making use of supporting evidence to prove a theory, etc. At the time, Bacon was attempting to justify Christianity as 'science' by using this philosophy. That part they don't teach at Berkeley. It's why when someone brings up Bacon's definition of 'science', I attack it by using it to prove Christianity and Atheism at the same time, to show what a paradox that definition creates.

Ahhhh, that shines quite a bit of light on your Christianity example towards people who agree with Bacon... I didn't know he was attempting to justify Christianity as science... Interesting stuff...

Karl Popper has it right. 'Science' is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. No theory is ever proven True. It can only be proven False if and only if the theory is falsifiable.

Correct. Popper DOES have it right. Science concerns itself with conflicting evidence as opposed to supporting evidence. Popper was keeping religion and science separated, while Bacon apparently wanted to combine the two.

Nonscientific theories, such as the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of the Big Bang, or the Theory of Creation, are not falsifiable, and therefore not science. They can be neither be proven True nor False. They can never be falsified, so they will never die. They remain as they began: circular arguments.

Precisely.

 

[StoneByStone]

Google is not a conservative. Indeed, the company is largely liberal.

No, but you're missing the point. If you google that phrase, you'll see how often pro-gun people use it.

Changing history now?

Changing history now?

Look it up.

Oh yes it can! Remember the revolutionary war? Perhaps you missed that in school.

Ha, if only! The reason we won the Revolutionary War is because Britain was at war with France. The French were helping us, and giving the British such a huge fight, that the British Empire decided we weren't worth the effort to keep us. Militias never would have been able to beat the British military without the help of a major empire.

You don't seem to get that citizens outnumber any military by a WIDE margin.

And you don't seem to get that the military has bombs, tanks, drones, fighter jets, and so on.

No, you are making a false equivalence between two arguments. You have also not lost context. while moving goalposts around. Done here.

You're a little confused.

Guns do protect other freedoms, as well as yourself, your family, and your property.

So how come countries with stricter gun control still have freedom? When is New Zealand going to lose its freedom?

 

[StoneByStone]

WRONG. You evade all the time, liar.

What subject have I evaded?

 

[StoneByStone]

Chanting isn't logic.

Insult fallacy (again).

He insulted me, so I lost interest. You want to have a discussion, do it without sperging out.

 

[Into the Night]

No, but you're missing the point. If you google that phrase, you'll see how often pro-gun people use it.

And they are correct in doing so.

Look it up.

Why?

Ha, if only! The reason we won the Revolutionary War is because Britain was at war with France.

WRONG. We were already winning. France just made it easier.

The French were helping us, and giving the British such a huge fight, that the British Empire decided we weren't worth the effort to keep us.

WRONG. They had no choice.

Militias never would have been able to beat the British military without the help of a major empire.

They already were.

And you don't seem to get that the military has bombs, tanks, drones, fighter jets, and so on.

So do civilians. It's easy to make a bomb. People own tanks. People own drones. People own fighter jets (heck a good friend of mine owns a Soviet fighter jet!). People own machine guns. What you don't seem to get is that superior weaponry is not a guarantee of victory. Obviously, you have never studied the history of warfare either.

You're a little confused.

No, YOU are denying history. YOU are trying to change it.

So how come countries with stricter gun control still have freedom? When is New Zealand going to lose its freedom?

It already has. It's an oligarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

What subject have I evaded?

Don't play innocent with me, liar.